So I wanted to clarify this issue here. Not only am I going to show how the Ahlus Sunnah are not racist, I’m also going to demonstrate how it’s the Shi’ites who are truly racist.

As for the Ahlus Sunnah being racist, I ask how is that even possible when the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah are from God Himself? If racism is unjust, and God is perfectly just, then how can the rules of God be racist? That makes no sense at all! So even though the principle of Arabs being superior to non-Arabs may appear to be unjust, we know that since it is commanded by God Himself, it cannot be unjust, and hence it isn’t racist.

So much for the idiotic argument about the Ahlus Sunnah being racist. Now moving on to the more interesting part of the racism in Shi’ism.

What a lot of Muslims are not aware of is how blatantly racist Shi’ism has been throughout its history. Not only in the past, but even now these Shi’ite “scholars” are propagating the same racist notions in their books of law. The following is a selection of some of the racist material I found present in the works of their most important modern scholars (from last century):

Ayatullah Abu al-Qasim al-Khui:
One of the most important Shi’i scholars of the last century. You can read more about him here, here, and here.

Translation: It is reprehensible to marry someone with bad character, and the transgendered person, and the Zunj (black person from Eastern Africa), and the Kurds, and the Khazars (a group of Turkic people), and the bedouin Arabs, and the immoral persons, and the drinker of alcohol.

Notice the racism in that law against Kurds and black Africans. This is something that we will see throughout the Shi’i books of law and hadith. But first, here are some more scholars who have made the exact same ruling in their works:

Translation: It is reprehensible to marry someone with bad character, and the transgendered person, and the Zunj (black person from Eastern Africa), and the Kurds, and the Khazars (a group of Turkic people), and the bedouin Arabs, and the immoral persons, and the drinker of alcohol.

Ayatullah Muhammad Kazim Tabtaba’i Yazdi:
He was the head of the Hawzah of Najaf till his death. You can read more about him here.

Translation: It is reprehensible to marry someone with bad character, and the transgendered person, and the Zunj (black person from Eastern Africa), and the Kurds, and the Khazars (a group of Turkic people), and the bedouin Arabs, and the immoral persons, and the drinker of alcohol.

I was asked by a brother whether or not it is true that Shi’ite men are allowed to derive sexual pleasure from infant children, and even new-born babies, by fondling them or rubbing their genitals on them. I told him that I would post about this issue soon, so this post of mine is about that topic.Yes, this is indeed permissible for Shi’ites. But I warn my brother from the Ahlus Sunnah to not rush to condemn the Shi’ites for this moral depravity, since I’ve looked in our own texts and I could not find any rules in the works of jurisprudence of all the madhabs that forbid such behavior. And since deriving sexual pleasure from your wives or female slaves is generally permissible in Islam, and only sexual intercourse is prohibited before the age of maturity (typically at 9 years), it appears that the act of lustful fondling and thighing infant wives may be permissible for us as well.

So if we condemn the Shi’ites for these hideously immoral laws, and it turns out that they are permissible in our faith as well, then obviously they cannot be immoral since our religion allows them, so we will have to walk back our previous comments to the Shi’ites, which might be a little embarrassing for us. So take heed!

Anyway, coming to the actual issue, here are the rulings of their scholars (the “Ayatullahs”) about this topic.

The most prominent Shi’ite scholar in the world today is Ayatullah Sistani, who resides in Najaf. This is what he has to say about this issue in his book Minhaj as-Saliheen (in the Chapter of Nikah):

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/book/16/858/
Issue #8: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’a (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, kissing, embracing, and thighing (i.e., rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it. [That is, there is no problem in deriving such pleasures from one’s wife before she reaches the age of 9 years.]

Another extremely important Shi’ite leader from the 20th Century was Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini. You might be familiar with him due to his prominence in the late 20th century, especially due to him being the founder of the current Islamic Republic of Islam. He also repeats the same ruling as above in his book Tahreer al-Waseelah:

Tahreer al-Waseelah, volume 2, page 343
Issue #12: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’a (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (i.e., rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it, even if she is a suckling baby.
Some other prominent Shi’ite scholars who have given the same ruling regarding deriving sexual pleasure from babies are the following:

So hopefully that answers the question. Again I must warn the brothers to be careful in this regard, since this immoral law might be permissible in our faith as well, which would make it completely, 100% moral. So do not rush to judgments too quickly. And, indeed, Allaah is the best of Helper and the best of Guides.

There is a verse in the Noble Qur’an that expounds the law of Qisas (retaliation, lex talionis) in Islam, about which there is a lot of misinformation among our brothers and sisters. So I wanted to post some material to clarify this issue. I have also been receiving requests from people asking me to post Shi’ite (Rafidi) views as well, so while I think their beliefs are deviant and misguided, I will post their views as well on this issue towards the end of this post.

[Y. Ali translation] O ye who believe! the law of equality (Qisas) is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
[Qur’an: Surah 2, Verse 178]

So our Muslim brothers and sisters appear to think that this verse is saying that Islam penalizes the killing of an innocent person by the death penalty for the killer — regardless of the status of the killer. But this is far from the truth, for Allaah has honored Islaam over kufr (disbelief) and free men over slaves, so how can you expect the law of Qisas (retaliation) to be the same as well?

The following are some Saheeh (authentic) narrations about this from our Blessed Prophet (S):

Narrated Ash-Shu`bi:
I heard Abu Juhaifa saying, “I asked `Ali ‘Have you got any Divine literature apart from the Qur’an?’ (Once he said…apart from what the people have?) `Ali replied, ‘By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Qur’an and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah’s Book which He may endow a man with and we have what is written in this paper.’ I asked, ‘What is written in this paper?’ He replied, ‘Al-`Aql (the regulation of Diya), about the ransom of captives, and the Judgment that a Muslim should not be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a disbeliever.”http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/42

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet () said:
”A believer should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever, and a person who has a treaty should not be killed during the time of the treaty.” (Sahih)http://sunnah.com/urn/1269770

The scholars and Imams of our religion have also confirmed the same. Imam Ibn Rushd (Averroes) has summarized the rulings of the Imams of our religion in his Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid as follows:

Translation: As for the condition due to which qisas becomes obligatory on the killer it is that the killed person should at least be of the same status as that of the killer. And that which differentiates persons are Islam and kufr (disbelief), being a free person or a slave, being a male or female, or being one or more (that is, if the killer is a single person or a group of people). And the scholars are in agreement that if the killed person is equal to the killer in all of these four categories, then qisas becomes obligatory. And they disagreed about (the ruling) in these four categories if they were not the same.
If a free man killed a slave, then the scholars differed about it.
Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Layth, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Imam Abu Thawr said: A free man is not killed (for killing a slave).
And Imam Abu Haneefa and his followers said: A free man is killed for killing a slave except if the slave belongs to him (the free man).
…
As for killing a believer (Muslim) for (killing) a kafir (disbeliever) who is under the protection of Islam (dhimmi), the scholars differed about this into three opinions.
1 – A group (of scholars) said: A believer is not to be killed for killing a disbeliever. And among these are Imams Shafi’i, Thawri, Ahmad (bin Hanbal), Dawood, and another group.
2 – And a group (of scholars) said: He (the Muslim) is killed for it. And among those who said this are Imam Abu Haneefa and his followers, and Ibn Abi Layla
3 – And Imams Malik and Layth said: The believer is not killed for it except if he kills through treachery or deceit (gheelah). And the killing of gheelah is when (the killer) assaults the victim while he is unaware and slaughters him, especially if it is for his money. [end of translation]
(By the way, this text has been translated in its entirety into English. It can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Distinguished-Jurists-Primer-Volume/dp/1859641393/ . The part I’m referring to above is on pages 482 and 483.)

This ruling can also be seen in the tafseer of Imam Qurtubi, Jami` Ahkam al-Qur’an, where he summarizes the rulings of the scholars on the Qur’anic verse quoted above (Surah 2, Verse 178):

[Translation] And the majority of our scholars are of the opinion that a free man is not killed for (killing) a slave because of the classification and divisions (of persons) in the verse. And as Abu Thawr said: The majority (of scholars) are in agreement on that there is no qisas between slaves and freemen because of the lowliness of their persons (the slaves) while the free men are more worthy than this.
…
And the majority are also in agreement that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing a kafir (disbeliever) because of the saying of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: “A Muslim is not to be killed for (killing) a disbeliever”, as reported by Bukhari from Ali bin Abi Talib. And it is not correct what they (that is, those who disagree with this ruling) report in the narration of Rabi’ah from the Prophet that he killed a Muslim for killing a kafir in (the battle of) Khaybar, because that narration is cut off (munqata`). And for the narration from Ibn Baylmani, it is a weak, marfu` narration from Ibn Umar from the Prophet. Imam Darqutni said, “There is no chain for this narration except from Ibrahim bin Abi Yahya, and he is rejected (matrook) in hadith”. [end of translation]

So it is clear that the majority of our scholars are in agreement that a Muslim should not be killed for killing a non-Muslim, even if he is a dhimmi (a protected non-Muslim living in the Muslim state). And nor should a free man be killed for killing a slave. The only exception in the four Imams is Imam Abu Haneefa, but even he agrees that the master of a slave cannot be killed for killing his own slaves.

The following are the rulings of the Imams of our religion on this issue which confirm this. Imam Malik narrates in his Muwatta:

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.
Malik said, “What is done in our community, is that a Muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.”http://sunnah.com/urn/416421

And we also read in the Risalah of Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (known as “little Malik”):

And a free man is not killed for killing a slave but a slave is killed for killing him (a free man). And a Muslim is not killed for killing a disbeliever, but a disbeliever is killed for killing a Muslim. And there is no retaliation for injuries caused by a free man to a slave, nor between a Muslim who injures a disbeliever.

Qisas is obligatory on whoever kills a person purely intentionally and aggressively (that is, not in self-defense). But qisas is not applicable on children or the insane under any circumstances, nor is it applicable on a Muslim for killing a kafir, nor on a free man for killing a slave, nor on a dhimmi for killing an apostate, nor on a father or a mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their child, or their child’s children.

And payment of blood-money is not obligatory for killing a haribi (someone who belongs to a nation which the Islamic state is at war with), or (killing) an apostate, or someone sentenced to death by stoning, or those whom it is necessary to kill in military action, nor on the master for killing his slave.

And a Muslim is not killed for killing a kafir, even if he has apostatized from Islam. Nor is a free man killed for killing a slave. And this is the correct religious belief without doubt, and this is also what the colleagues believe.

As noted above, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa believe that Muslims can be killed in qisas for killing disbelievers, and also that free men can be killed for killing slaves of others. But free men cannot be killed for killing their own slaves of any kind. We read in al-Hidaya, the classic manual of Hanafi law:

And a man is not killed for killing his own slave, nor for killing his mudabbar (a slave who the master has agreed to set free upon his death), nor for killing his mukatab (a slave who has made an agreement with his master to be set free for a certain payment), nor for killing his son’s slave.

Shi’ite Law

As for Shi’ite law, it is very similar. Allamah Hilli (Hasan ibn Yusuf ibn `Ali ibn Mutahhar Hilli) wrote a famous text criticizing the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah called Nahj al-Haq wa Kashf as-Sidq. In it we read the following:

Translation: And the Imamiyyah (Twelver Shi’ites) believe that a Muslim is not killed for killing a dhimmi.
(But) Abu Haneefa said he is to be killed. And this is in opposition to the words of Allaah, the Most High, “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.” [Qur’an, surah 4, verse 141]. And “Not equal are the Companions of the Fire and the Companions of the Garden: it is the Companions of the Garden, that will achieve Felicity.” [Qur’an, surah 59, verse 20].
And the Prophet, may the Blessings and Peace of Allaah be upon him, said: “Do not kill a Muslim for (killing) a kafir, nor a person who has a treaty during the time of the treaty”.
…
The Imamiyyah believe that the free man is not killed for killing a slave.
(But) Abu Haneefa said that the free man is to be killed for a slave that he doesn’t own.
But this is in opposition to the saying of Allaah, the Most High, “Free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave.” [Qur’an: Surah 2, Verse 178]
And the saying of the Prophet, may the Blessings and Peace of Allaah be upon him, “From my Sunnah is that the free man is not killed for killing a slave”.
The Imamiyyah believe that the father is not killed for killing his child. [end of translation]

Allamah Hilli also provides the statements of Shaykh Mufeed and Shaykh Tusi (two of the most important Shi’ite scholars) on this issue in his Mukhtalaf ash-Shi’ah:

[Translation] Shaykh Mufeed said: If the master kills his slave deliberately, the kaffarah (compensation) that is due him is the act of freeing a believing slave [non-believer slaves should not be freed]. But if he adds to it fasting for two consecutive months and feeds sixty poor persons, this is better and protects him in the compensation for his sin. And this can be done to satisfy the requirement of freeing a slave (if the person doesn’t have any more slaves).
And the Shaykh (Tusi) – May Allah have mercy on him – said in his book al-Nihaya: “Whoever kills his slave deliberately, on him is the compensation of killing deliberately. And these are well known. And this is the strongest position, and the proofs for it are the narrations about it. Abu Baseer narrates in an authentic narration from (Ja’far) al-Sadiq – peace be upon him – who said: Whoever kills his slave deliberately, on him is the freeing of a slave, or feeding sixty poor persons, or fasting two months.” And in the authentic narration from Zurarah from (Ja’far) al-Sadiq – peace be upon him – who was asked about a man who killed his slave deliberately, is there any kaffarah (compensation) upon him? He (al-Sadiq) replied: (The kaffarah is) freeing of a slave and fasting for two months and giving charity to sixty poor persons.” [end of translation]

However, if a slave kills his own master, then the slave must be killed. As Shaykh Tusi states in his Nihayah:

Translation: And if a Muslim kills a dhimmi, payment of blood-money is obligatory on him, but the death penalty is not applicable to him. Except if this person habitually kills the dhimmis. And if this is the case, and the representatives of the killed person request the death penalty, then it is upon the Imam (leader) to decide whether the killer deserves the death penalty.
…
But if the representatives of the killed person don’t request the death penalty, or the killer does not habitually kill dhimmis, then he cannot be killed under any circumstances.[End of translation]

The renowned Shi’ite scholar Ibn Idrees however states in his Sara’ir that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing a non-Muslim under any condition whatsoever. He states that the narration relied upon by Shaykh Tusi about killing a Muslim if he habitually kills dhimmis should not be relied upon:

And if a Muslim kills a dhimmi deliberately, payment of blood money becomes obligatory on him, and the death penalty is not applicable upon him under any circumstances. And it is narrated that if the Muslim habitually kills the dhimmis, and if this is the case and the representatives of the killer demand so, then it is upon the Imam to decide whether or not to impose the death penalty upon him.
…
But it is undesirable to give importance to this narration, and it should not be depended upon, because it opposes the Qur’an and the unanimous consensus of the scholars (regarding this issue).

So hopefully this issue is clarified now. We should always remember that Allaah, the Most High, did not make Muslims equal to non-Muslims, nor slaves equal to free men, as His divine laws make perfectly clear. Indeed Allaah is the Most Merciful of the merciful.

Quite often you hear the Western kuffaar ignorantly claim that their secular laws are superior to Islaam. Astaghfirullaah!

But in this post I’m going to give just one example (out of thousands!) that shows how Islaam is so vastly superior to Western Secularism that it is a grave insult to Islaam to even compare the two.

For example, consider the case of the runaway slaves (that is, those slaves who have somehow managed to escape from their rightful masters). Tell me, what is the law in these kaafir Western lands about dealing with such lowly scum?

That’s right, there isn’t any. No laws AT ALL to deal with slaves who deliberately run away from their rightful masters!

But, alhamdulillaah, Islaam is perfect and complete, and our Blessed Prophet (S) revealed to us the divine laws to deal with runaway slaves.

In fact, the perfection of Islaam is evident from the fact that not only are there laws in Islaam to deal with runaway slaves in this life, these slaves are condemned by Allaah spiritually as well! For example, we see in these authentic (Saheeh) narrations from our Prophet (S):

Fadala ibn ‘Ubayd reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Do not ask about three:
a man who parts company with the community, rebels against the ruler and dies while he is a still a rebel. Do not ask about him. Or a slave or slavegirl who runs away from his or her master. Or a woman whose husband is absent and who has sufficient provision and then displays her adornments (beauty) to strangers and mixes freely.http://sunnah.com/adab/30/53

Jarir used to narrate from the Prophet [SAW]:
“If a slave runs away, no Salah will be accepted from him, and if he dies he will die a disbeliever.” A slave of Jarir’s ran away, and he caught him and struck his neck (killing him). (Sahih)http://sunnah.com/nasai/37/85

Abu Umamah narrated that :
Allah’s Messenger said: “There are three whose Salat would not rise up beyond their ears: The runaway slave until he returns, a woman who spends a night while her husband is angry with her, and a people’s Imam whom they dislike.” (Hasan (Sound chain of narration))http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/2/212

So it is clear in Islam that if a slave runs away from his or her rightful master, then Allaah, the Most Merciful, rejects the prayers of this slave until he or she returns to their master (as all rightfully owned slaves should!).

This is just the spiritual punishment for slaves who have the temerity to run away from their masters, but you might be wondering how does Islam deal with such slaves in this present life? Surely Islaam must have laws that help those slave owners from getting their rightfully owned slaves back, right?

But of course there are! Alhamdulillaah for the beauty of Islaam!

We read in al-Hidaya, the preeminent manual of Hanafi law that the reward for capturing a runaway slave and returning him to his master is 40 dirhams (an Islamic ‘dirham’ is about three grams of pure silver). But if the slave hasn’t run too far off, then this reward might be lowered. Also, if the price of this slave is itself lower than 40 dirhams (probably a low class slave), then the reward is one dirham less than the price of the slave.

Translation:
Imam Abu Haneefa (may Allaah have mercy on his soul) said: And whoever returns a runaway slave, who had run off more than a three-day journey, to his master, then the reward is forty dirhams. And if (the slave) was returned from less than that (three days journey), then the reward is calculated accordingly.
…
And Imam Abu Haneefa said: If his (the slave’s) price is less than forty, then the returner is to be awarded one dirham less than the price of the slave.

Ma’sha’allah, that makes so much sense! If the owner has cheap, low-class slaves, then why should he have to pay the full price for their return? Obviously he would have to pay in accordance to the price of that slave. More money for good slaves, and less for cheap ones.

Also, we should keep in mind that if the person who discovered the slave doesn’t know who the owner is, he shouldn’t just leave the slave and allow him to escape to his freedom. For this slave is the property of someone else, and he should be returned to him! So the correct approach, as taught in Islaam, is to capture that slave and take him to the Ruler. The Ruler then imprisons the runaway slave until his owner can take him back. As the Imam explains:

Translation:
Imam Abu Haneefa (may Allaah have mercy on his soul) said: Capturing the runaway slave is preferable for one who has the strength to do so.
…
Then when the captured runaway slave is brought to the Sultaan (ruler), since the capturer may not have the power to secure him (the slave) on his own, as opposed to a lost slave (who is found), then when this runaway slave is brought to him (the ruler), he (the ruler) should imprison the slave. But if the lost slave is brought to the ruler, he is not to be imprisoned. This is because the ruler cannot be certain that the runaway slave will not try to run away a second time, as opposed to a lost slave (who likely won’t run away).

These laws are similar across the different Madhabs and are based on the sayings of our Beloved Prophet (S). As recorded in Nasb al-Rayah fi Takhrij aHadith al-Hidaya by Imam Zayla’i:

Translation:
There is consensus among our companions (that is, the religious scholars) on the principle of reward (for the runaway slaves). Except that among them are some who say that the reward that is mandated is forty (dirhams), and some who say that it is other than that. Abdul Razzaq narrated in his Musannaf from Ibn Umru al-Shaybani who said:
I obtained some adult slaves of ours who had run away, and I mentioned this to Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said: “Remuneration and profit (for you)”. I said to him: “This (the slaves) is the reward, but what is the profit?” He replied: “Forty dirhams for every head (slave).”

And (Imam) Tabrani narrated in his Mu’jam from a chain to Abdul Razzak, and (Imam) Bayhaqi narrated in his Sunan, what is similar to what is mentioned in this chapter. Another narration is: Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated in his Musannaf that Muhammad bin Yazeed narrated to him, from Ayyoob, from Abi Alaa`, from Qatadah and Abi Hashim, that Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) ruled that the reward for (returning) a runaway slave is forty dirhams.

Another narration: Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Waqi` narrated he heard Sufyan who heard from Abi Ishaaq who said that: The reward given (for the return of a runaway slave) in the time of Mu’awiyah was forty dirhams.

Another narration: Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Yazeen bin Haroon narrated from Hajjaj, from Umru bin Sa’eed, from Sa’eed bin Musayyib, from Umar bin al-Khattab, that he rewarded the (return of a) runaway slave with one Dinar (about 4.3 grams of pure gold), or twelve dirhams.

Another narration: Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Yazeen bin Haroon narrated from Hajjaj, from (Imran bin) Husayn, from Shu’ba, from Harith, from Ali bin Abi Talib that he rewarded the (return of a) runaway slave with one dinar or twelve dirhams.

In a marfu` mursal narration recorded by Abdul Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah in their Musannafs from Umru bin Dinar who said: The Prophet, may the blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him, ruled in the case of a runaway slave who was captured outside the haram (outside of holy sanctuaries in Makkah or Madinah) that the reward (of his capture) was one dinar, or twelve dirhams.
[end of translation]

So, dear Brothers and Sisters, as you can see, Islam has left nothing to conjecture or personal opinions. Even in the case of runaway slaves, Islam has provided laws and guidelines to capture them and return them to their rightful owners. In fact, to discourage slaves from even thinking about running away, Allaah, the Most Merciful, has decreed that the prayers of such slaves are void till they return to their rightful masters. And that if they are captured in the territory of kaafirs, they can be killed!

So how dare these kuffaar claim that their laws are better than Islaam’s! They don’t even have any laws for runaway slaves. But Islaam, being the true and pure religion of God, brought to light these laws more than 1,400 years ago. And even now these kuffaar Westerners haven’t caught up to us. Subhaan Allaah!

Recently I’ve noticed a trend among Arab Muslim families, especially those living in the West, where they allow their daughters to get married to non-Arab men.

Yes, it is true, I am not making this up.

How disgusting!

Yes, I know that it is not haraam to do so, but neither is rubbing feces on your face! Would you do that as well?

Brothers and Sisters, our deen is clear. It is recommended for people to marry someone who is their kafa’a (religiously suitable match), and non-Arab men are NOT a suitable match for Arab women.

This is well-established in our faith. Read, for example, my previous post about how Arabs are the most superior of all races. But if that isn’t enough, read what our worthy scholars have told us about this matter. We see the following regarding the kafa’a for marriage in the classic Shafi’i manual of Islamic law titled ‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper):

(Taken from the section of Kafa’a in the chapter of Nikaah in the text)
Translation: Kafa’a (Suitability in marriage for a female) is in the lineage (ancestry of the man), and in religiousness, and his being a free man (not a slave), and in his profession, and his being free of defects that can cause the annulment of the marriage. And the ajami (non-Arab) is NOT suitable for an Arab woman, and a non-Qurayshi is NOT suitable for a Qurayshi woman (Quraysh was the tribe of the Holy Prophet (S)), nor is a non-Hashimi or non-Muttalabi suitable for a Hashimi or Muttalabi woman (Hashimites are the members of the clan to which the Holy Prophet (S) belonged to, and Muttalabites are the descendants of the grandfather of the Holy Prophet (S)). Nor is an immoral man suitable for a virtuous woman, nor is a slave suitable for a free woman, nor is a freed slave or one whose ancestors were touched by slavery suitable for a (free) woman whose ancestors were free. Nor is a man of a lowly profession suitable for the daughter of someone with a noble profession, such as a tailor wanting to marry a tradesman’s daughter.

So we see that the following are NOT kafa’a (suitable for marriage) for women:

Non-Arab men for Arab women

Non-Qurayshi man for a Qurayshi woman

Non-Hashimi or non-Muttalabi for a Hashimi or Muttalabi woman

Sinful man for virtuous a woman

A slave or a freed slave for a free woman

A free man but one whose ancestors might have been slaves for a free woman whose ancestors were not slaves

A man with a lowly profession for a woman whose father has a noble profession

Brothers and Sisters, your deen is not a game. Do not ignore the instructions of our scholars who labored long and hard for our benefit and left us with such treasures. As for this book, you might be pleased to know that there exists a partial translation of this work in English as well, which you can read more about here or here. The translator included the Arabic text I’ve quoted above in the book (pages 523-524), but did not translate it into English. It seems that he is also one of these “modern Muslims” who stoop low to ingratiate the Western kuffaar by ignoring the teachings of our Muslim scholars.

So I warn you again, do not ignore your deen for the sake of worldly desires or to please the kuffaar Westerners, and keep your daughters and sisters away from non-Arab men, descendants of slaves, and those in lowly professions.

But that is only if you are Arab. If you do not belong to this superior race, then these conditions do not apply to you, so do with your women as you please.